Maybe, you're right, and he's alive. I rater think, he's a dead (a good) god, but a silly jerk, like the ones, who are "made in the image of God", throwing bombs and poison gas on each other, killing babys before the are born - with du-bombs, poison air and waters, throwing her waste everywhere... his creation, "made in his image" ... Maybe, he's in guantanamo, or burnt up by the fire of Little Boy and Fat Man.
You can not blame God for human actions. You are responsible for your actions. Many monks spend years to find out something about God.
So, you are not free to fight it? What are you doing, then - just now, a post above mine?!? If you are not fighting it - you're a serious masochist!
No fights. only reviews We will respect the ideas ! ------ If God exists he loves everyone hears but few ! ^^
Actually nobody needs a 'proper training'. A proper training is needed to be studied at the special subject. The 'truth' is accessible to all of us, because 'our' absolute self, (which cannot be objectified) is truth. A person which had not been a part of western educational institutions (study of sciences, Philosophy) can be more of wisdom and reason as a studied Philosopher /Scientist. I took my time to have a look at Hegel, to tell you why I disagree. AFAIK is for Hegel that to know the reason means to know the reality, the laws of reason are the laws of reality. Reason of a process of evolution, every higher stage includes and transcends the lower. In the higher is the real being of the lower made more explicit and conscious of its being. However Hegel did some mistakes concerning the absolute. He has been fooled by thoughts. He made the absolute to be relative by thinking about. The absolute is NOT something that is realized in the future by the dialectical process. It is eternally present at every stage of the process! Nobody of the western Philosopher’s has got what ‘absolute’ means. Hegel's Absolute is a relative conceptual process. The weakness of western Philosophy is lacking of practical measures who allow another focus of consciousness, to unveil the absolute. The world doesn’t change because of that. Acting which doesn’t come from the awareness of ‘being’ is out of creativity, anything new, becomes (manifest) from the present which is absolute being. As I have told already, I am talking of a dramatic change in consciousness, not of another theory of the absolute. Mind abilities are sufficient to study if need, but as I have told this is no mind game and that is the reason why ‘thinker’ cannot get what I mean. My science study is just as useless (here). To me genuine Philosophy comes from the awareness of the self (absolute now) and manifests as (rational) declaration of intuitional experience (hence I needed to gain understanding for 'my' terms')...and not as categorizing of externally observed phenomena, which I call mind games (science also). At another thread we discussed about intuition and creativity and I recognized that we are far away with our ideas. Western Philosophers seem to deny that anything happens ever now. Intuition is the immediate 'knowing' by the total being of the Self (I named that presence and one glance is enough to 'know it all'.), while intellect is only an understanding of a few empirical parts by using (past) thoughts and patterns. Understanding now reason to me reason comes from this self. God is just a synonym for it. You are confusing god with your idea of god. Anything you seem to know about god is NOT god and any idea of god is not god. Same issue here, naming, thinking about the absolute makes it relative.
@Paiva >>> "made in the image of God" If you want to know something about god, examine his creatures If they are "made in the image of God", their traits are equal to traits of god. greedy humans == greedy god cruel humans == cruel god cruel god == cruel humans, "made by his image" Antichrist is cruel, greedy, bad, ... so the antichrist is like god, like us Else we are not "made by his image" and so our existence is not proof for his existence. If existance of humans is proof for existence of god, it is proof for existence of krishna, the invisible pink unicorn, gollum, the flying spaghetti monster, the green hulk, batman, Russell’s teapot, orks and witches. It impossible, to proove nonexistence, so they must exist. If we have "free will", we are "free in mind", even members of sects (cults) and lunatics are free in mind. Do you think, it needs an Shōkō Asahara, L. Ron Hub*bard, Jim Jones, Claude Verhilon, David Koresh? TV, "News"papers, "the free press" have the same sway at "free will". As long, as i'm stopped from going, where i want, by prison or borders, my body is not free. As long, as my mind is pushed to a view at his world, different from what i would think, if this tools of propaganda do not exist, my will is not "free", it is enforced to grapple with it. A men, hallucinating, dying with thirst, is he free in mind? Do you think, you're free? What you think: what you want - your will, is it yours, free of interference, leverage, propaganda, your very own? Of cource the mind is not that easy to controll, then the body, but is it "free"? None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - J. W. von Goethe @Yen I am "made by the image of god", so i'm "equal to god", so im god. Übrigens nochmal vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe vor 2 Jahren wegen Biosmodule entfernen. Beschäftige mich gerade wieder damit.
There is good and bad human. Soon your logic is incorrect. Because God is unchanging. Their actions do not alter the divine ownership. You do not seem God.
OK, reality check... Some ideas are at opposite ends of spectrum and hence clashing big time. No way out of that one. Wake up! Think, for instance, FIS and democratic parties in Tunisia today (you have those elsewhere in the "Western world", too, if not so strong and open), Hitler and Social Democrats in Germany, some time ago, Inquisition and Renaissance thinkers earlier on and so on... Clash is inevitable. Ideas mean life and death, sometimes... No, some of us won't respect those holders of ideas (as well as ideas themselves) who would annihilate us, in order to get to power and enforce their ideas... Tolerance for the intolerant is suicide. This is a recipe for disaster! Sorry but...
But highly unlikely... Everybody needs answers to innermost questions Humanity has but not everybody works at those questions and not all answers are equally deep, honest, truthful etc. etc. The "absolute self" bit is nothing but obfuscation and mystication of things... Not for me, I am not into metaphysics, like you... Prejudiced start. Not good! Not gonna end well, I fear... OKI, so far so good... Here we go with issues you bring into this, without any proper evaluation and proof of such mystifications... These thoughts are "shot out of a gun", no grounds for them shown, so no chance to evaluate them rationally... Oh, wait: that's the whole point, isn't is - one CAN NOT do that by design, so anyone can be an expert... Sorry, Sir, seen through that one... No, thanx, reality check - not everyone is "knowledgeable" or even "wise"... I feel another Nobel laureate is burgeoning with civilisationally pregnant ideas... A great change is about to befall us... Failed, sit down. Don't come back 'till you have actually read the darn thinker or invested in a proper study of Philosophy as a whole! This is plainly a silly attempt at gaining respectability for groundless and by definition "not-possible-to-evaluate-mysticism", clearly a childish attempt at a short-cut leading NOWHERE!!! Yen, I am serious here: this will lead you NOWHERE! Only emptiness! Unless, of course, this is precisely what you are after... a kind of "zen", to help you cope with daily pressures, tension which grinds, little by little... In which case, this is fine - just don't even try to "explain" it to anyone. Simply keep it private and if it is useful - cool. But Philosophy is not about "coping techniques". And it certainly is trying to elucidate, not obfuscate. It is trying to get somewhere and anyone, given the effort needed, can get there. If you can not "express it", so others can understand it, evaluate it rationally and put it back into debate in a similar manner - forget it. This is not Philosophy. I would say there is a great misconception at work here... Please, speak for yourself. I do know a few things about it, having studied Philosophy, Psychology, Stylistics etc. What a load of groundless bo**o**... But you made me laugh! So, thank you! (The rest is complete gibberish, so not going there, this is more than enough for a reasoned debate... IF anyone is interested... )
Define "good", define "bad". is it good or bad, to grab a stone and throw it? Right! Thats the funny thing with believers, there i no logic, just belive. Yes, all people are "made in the image of God", "good" ones, and "bad" ones, like "his spaghettiness" / "god" / "the invisible pink unicorn". Teach me, how god seems. Seems like god ?
The good and bad are opposites. I know you know that. You take a verse isolated and builds a silly idea. This may be your God.
"Good" and "bad" are only both sides of the same medal. Its a ethical category, the same as "beautiful" and "ugly". "Right" and "wrong" is in the eye of the beholder. I take a silly idea and build a silly verse. Right, thats the point. > "God" exist in our minds. We are real, he is just our creation, our creature. Or: > "God" has a long dream, and we only exist in his dream, so we are his creatures and all "good" and "bad", we do, is in his "divine ownership". As we know, dreams are the mirrors of our innermost feelings, so he must be greedy, sardistic, drunkhead, altruist and terrorist, all as we are. And that proofs, he is not recognizable, because all what happend, can be done either by us, or because of his will. Either he is NOT (the) almighty, or anything happens by his will: fukushima, guantanamo, babys burnt to dead by uranium-bombs, raped womans and even childs, M. L. K. killed and G. W. B. alive, all by his will. He's not dead, he's merely a silly idea.
@Gorski. I cannot read all the 'thinkers' or study W. Philosophy. I had to read some Kant when I was ~22 and 'know' some fragments of W.Phil. I took my time to read about Hegel's 'absolute' to reply here. I discovered a basic issue which I tried to make clear. Since most people are affected it is not easy to look through it. To be reasonable one needs to have the ability to stop thinking when wanted. My idea of genuine Philosophy played awfully well a role at the ancient Philosophy. One who cannot stop thinking is possessed and only limited reasonable. Concerning Hegel his idea of Absolute is realized in the end as result of evolution, but not as the 'complete whole', the Absolute together with the process of evolution means according to him the complete whole. The absolute cannot consist of parts, he is wrong. He excludes Nature and Cosmos from the Absolute. Intellect, which is the tool of 'thinker' splits up reality into parts and infers the former from the latter. The significance of intuition is not understood. The reason for it is the illusion of time and the relation to this illusionary idea. Prove the existence of time and then we can go on. The existence is not provable, the 'now' includes anything already hence there is no realization in 'future'. From 'where' comes Hegel's idea of the absolute, which he later distorted by the intellect by separating it? Almost nobody is aware of intuitional processes because they are superimposed by categorizing thoughts. First there is direct awareness and then there is categorizing of mind. The process of direct awareness is the process of being (absolute reason) and then the categories of human reason are abstracted by the intellect and become 'own' reasoning which is driven by the ego, always having a own advantage in 'mind'. That process happens ever now and persists as long self-alienation persists. Consider one found a way to slow down the process of perception (time is relative). There is direct awareness and then the categorizing of intellect. Please request a way of evidence for those who are not able to separate these processes and hence 'think' it is the dialectical process that itself realizes the Absolute during time. 'Training' don't has to concern the intellect, it can also be a training in focusing consciousness on awareness of the now. IMHO it does matter what is the 'origin' of an idea and if it comes from a false idea of oneself it is forged. The 'highest' Hegel 'covers' with his ideas is the cosmic Reason, but not the absolute. Cosmic Reason is already a manifestation of it. Add: The more I am reading of Hegel, the more I am impressed, really. I only have an issue with his Absolute. To me the Vedanta comes closer to that what I 'think' of the Absolute. Give me a hint how I should go for 'evidence' and I'll try. (If I can).
No we're not responsible for our action when and as long as an omniscient God is there. For example, say there is a bowl of candy kept on a counter. I ask "Can I have a piece of candy?". The person behind the desk says "Yes. The candy is free". After I eat the candy, the man behind the counter says "You owe me for the candy." Was the candy free? No...... Say another example, there are a bunch of bowls of candy on the counter. I ask "Can I have a piece of candy?". The person behind the desk says "Yes. But, only if you choose from the bowl which contains the free candy". He adds "Now that you know about the choice you must make it or be charged for the candy anyway". There is nothing to indicate which bowl contains free candy and which does not. I grab a piece of candy from the bowl nearest to me. The man behind the counter says "You owe me for the candy." Was it fair to make me guess which candy was free? No.... God offers the treat of Heaven for those who guess which God is the one, true God. All religions have Gods. All religions have holy books. Nothing God does or has done shows conclusively which God is the one, true God. I guess the God nearest me must be the one, true God. I got sent to Hell for guessing wrong. Was it fair to force me to make a choice without giving me a clue which one to make, considering that a wrong choice would result in eternal damnation? No.... Suppose, in the last scenario, I refused to make a choice. "It's impossible to make a choice based on my limited knowledge." I explain. "Then, you are doomed to eternal Hell for not making a choice!" God exclaims. [FONT=Arial]Is it real freedom of choice if I'm denied the option of not choosing? No....[/FONT]
What a miracle is? Wait until we die, all the miracles happen after death; that is when God will appear in person to punish the sinner or reward the innocent.....
Copperfield and the naives. If i go back in time to jesus of nazareth with a motorbike, would he call the rolling thunder a miracle? And if the holly jesus himself calls it a miracle, would you honour me as saint? The slaveholders had knowledge about astronomy, they told their slaves, god will darken the sun as a sign of his will to their enslavement. Sometimes, if i repair computers, my customers call it a miracle, because they have not my knowlwdge. I'm a saint? Do you know, hoe copperfield does his tricks? No? Do you think, he's a saint? No? Why not? I miss your answer. How do you know this? How seems god? Whats the distinctions between him and me? Are you sure, i'm not god, or do you belive, i'm not god? Why?
@ sid_16, I liked the argument. " When you do not know the correct choice going to hell? " The answer is: I do not know. There are mysteries unanswered. But if God exists and he is fair, he has a special treatment in this case. See you on the other side. Regards,
@ fakerao, Jesus made a blind man see, this is not a miracle? There is trick. It is not magic. God knows everything. Omniscience is an attribute you do not have. You do not know my secrets. hahaha
You don't come to 'hell' when choosing the wrong god, you come because of the choosing itself, especially when the god is capital, lol. Aren't those 'different' gods finally your thought differences which you assign to the different religions? I mean you must have an idea of god, otherwise to chose wouldn't be possible. The perfect holy book should be empty or have the words: gnothi seauton, any thoughts and ideas of it are misleading. Realization is being itself. Unreasonable is the thinking intellect. The letters in there are made for the intellect, which caused wars because of fights due to different ideas.